Perhaps a linguistic difference, however, checking the doorbell is not “exceeding” the SOP. It isn’t in there in the first place. What is the accepted standard for checking the doorbell?
It is up to you, and your attorney.
Nick once said that “material” and “major” were interchangeable.
Well I need to get some roofing major for my project next weekend. :mrgreen::p;-)
Yep, and my uncle was a Seargent Material in the Army! :D:D
I suppose I should have added “in the definition of a defect as far as the SOP is concerned”. but then you wouldn’t have been able to crack a joke! ;-)
If anyone of you has yet to read Dr. Swift’s Inspect and Protect, you are missing half of your inspection business. This book should be required reading before anyone becomes an inspector. I have used several of his examples in all of my reports for years, with never a complaint. He spells it out right, on most all areas of any home.
Opinions Vary.
I agree, Blaine.
Paranoia, combined with 42 pages of disclaimers, does more to make an inspector look guilty, IMO.
I just have 6 pages, and a paragraph or two at the head of very section of my reports. One for roof, one for foundation, one for exterior, one for HVAC, etc. Inspectors using software need to put into their reports some of these disclaimers. Read a Comcast disclaimer book when you sign up for cable. It is 22 pages. Buy a home, sign dozens of pages, one verifies your signature on another page. Disclaimers are now the norm. Read a magazine, see a drug add, see the next full page of legal mumbo-jumbo.
There is no conflict.
An inspector is free to determine that a 250lb wrecking ball smashing into the side of the home would have a significant, adverse impact on the value of the property WITHOUT having to calculate the market value or marketability of the property (which has to do with comps, market, location, curb appeal, school system, etc.)
It basically delineates the difference between an inspector (who’s job it is to point out things that might significantly affect the value of the property) and an appraiser (who’s job it is to calculate the value of a property).
No conflict.
They are different and our SOP reinforces their difference by saying that Inspectors do one, but not the other.
Also, the SOP is not a stand-alone document… see “deemed material” line # 1 in our agreement www.nachi.org/documents.htm The SOP and inspector-client agreement (sister documents) are 2 halves. That’s why the combo has never lost in court.
The following is the most important paragraph in the inspection industry:
John, the reason for the future tense in that sentence: The inspector has to point out the defects he/she deems to be “material.” If the definition of “material” was limited to only that which is significantly affecting the property on the day of the inspection, then a plaintiff could argue that even though the inspector did fulfill his/her duty to report those defects he/she deemed to significantly affecting the property now as material, the inspector failed to deem another defect that could eventually significantly affect the property because the SOP did not require him to or he/she failed to inspect for it, not because he/she didn’t deem it major because he/she didn’t believe it to one day affect the value of he property. By expanding the definition of material with future tense, we COVER more defects (those that are significantly affecting the value now and those that might one day affect the value). The agreement, Line 1, then limits the inspector’s duty from ALL the defects we covered to only those he/she both observed and deemed to be material. On the surface it may appear that we increased the inspectors duty by expanding the definition of material via future tense, but we did this to make all reportable defects… determined by… the inspector (through the word “deemed”). We took 2 steps backwards and 3 forwards. Or more accurately, we put all the defects in a basket, then took the basket off the table. Hope that makes sense.
In short, use InterNACHI’s agreement.
Reporting a “material defect” most definitely is not the same as determining “market, or real, value”.
We relay to the client that it could “have an impact on the value”, but we do not determine the value, or the amount of impact.
Also, the “observed” is very important in the “observed and deemed material” line.
An inspector has a duty to inspect for roof leaks, but no duty to find them all. A plaintiff has to show that the InterNACHI member breached his duty by failing to inspect for something entirely, not just failing to observe something during the inspection. Much harder for a plaintiff to prove as likely, the inspector who failed to observe a roof leak, did in fact, look for roof leaks, and so fulfilled his duty, even though he didn’t find the leak.
In other words, use InterNACHI’s agreement. Your cousin Marvin who is a collection attorney, may charge you $600 to author a custom agreement for your inspection business, but InterNACHI has spent many years and many hundreds of thousands of dollars on this subject.
Simply explain to your client what you deem is significant while at the same time letting them know that the little things can add up as well…which is why they should read the whole report…either way you put the ball in the court so they can decide what to do with it.
Jeff
The ding dongs in Texas that wrote the rule state the door bell has to ding dong but not dong or ding only and it cannot dong ding. Any home that plays “The eyes of Texas are upon you” gets 100 bonus points. I am creating an 8 hour CEU course on how to push the button. 
Doesn’t the house get destroyed, immediately, if an Aggie inspects a house where the doorbell plays the Longhorn fight song?
And vice-versa.
Nick,
Thats makes sense. I need to read that once or twice. It has a lot of content. I agree with combining the SoP and report as a singular product. Very wise.
I do not do as much expert work as other people on this forum but the little work I do is mostly against lawyers or inexperienced experts interpreting the SoP their way. There are a lot of interelated aspects that defuse their argument and much is it shows in a study of your work. Everytime I read any SoP I can see a new perspective. Thanks for the input.
John
The Aggie has not figured out how to push the button. The man that wrote the SoP is a 9 year Aggie (still working on that degree I think).
As far as Texas vice versa. . . . . your probably right on that one.